Freedom-loving GOPer wants to force students read Ayn Rand

[Landslide Lyndon]

As Al would say, Americans seem to have a hard time detecting irony.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/feb/05/bill-requires-all-idaho-kids-read-atlas-shrugged/

Coeur d’Alene Sen. John Goedde, chairman of the Idaho Senate’s Education Committee, introduced legislation Tuesday to require every Idaho high school student to read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” and pass a test on it to graduate from high school.

When Sen. Bob Nonini, R-Coeur d’Alene, asked Goedde why he chose that particular book, Goedde said to laughter, “That book made my son a Republican.”

[pbrower2a]

As Al would say, Americans seem to have a hard time detecting irony.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/feb/05/bill-requires-all-idaho-kids-read-atlas-shrugged/

Coeur d’Alene Sen. John Goedde, chairman of the Idaho Senate’s Education Committee, introduced legislation Tuesday to require every Idaho high school student to read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” and pass a test on it to graduate from high school.

When Sen. Bob Nonini, R-Coeur d’Alene, asked Goedde why he chose that particular book, Goedde said to laughter, “That book made my son a Republican.”

At least Anthem, which is far more digestible, makes sense. Assertion of self as a right (perhaps as a duty!) and not a privilege is essential to any escape from tyranny. Such would apply as truly to feudalism, an insane despotism (whether Ivan the Terrible or Idi Amin), Bolshevism, Apartheid, Ba'athism, or any form of fascism. I would go so far as to say that Anthem offers an antidote to the nightmarish vision of 1984, the definitive expression of soul-crushing totalitarianism.

What book would make someone a Democrat? Democrats now seem to have the moral high ground. As for a book making something out of someone -- there is the Koran, which might make someone a Muslim...  which is surely preferable to what The Satanic Bible, The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, The Kloran (the guide to KKK practice), or anything written by the Marquis de Sade can make of someone.

Voltaire? Darwin? Freud? Any other suggestions?

Try Cervantes, Shakespeare, Milton, Goethe... maybe Tolstoy.

[fezzyfestoon]

Ayn Rand is the worst. I mean that.

[King]

To Ayn Rand's credit, if she were alive today, this kind of lawmaker would actually be a villain in one of her books. 

[Maxwell]

Yeah... no.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I have a lot to say on this, being a huge fan of her books. I have a thread for the essay section prepared in Microsoft word, and I will get around to posting it soon.

To Ayn Rand's credit, if she were alive today, this kind of lawmaker would actually be a villain in one of her books. 

Yes, he would be. She would hate this as much as she would hate students being forced to read anything by Marx.

As Al would say, Americans seem to have a hard time detecting irony.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/feb/05/bill-requires-all-idaho-kids-read-atlas-shrugged/

Coeur d’Alene Sen. John Goedde, chairman of the Idaho Senate’s Education Committee, introduced legislation Tuesday to require every Idaho high school student to read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” and pass a test on it to graduate from high school.

When Sen. Bob Nonini, R-Coeur d’Alene, asked Goedde why he chose that particular book, Goedde said to laughter, “That book made my son a Republican.”

At least Anthem, which is far more digestible, makes sense. Assertion of self as a right (perhaps as a duty!) and not a privilege is essential to any escape from tyranny. Such would apply as truly to feudalism, an insane despotism (whether Ivan the Terrible or Idi Amin), Bolshevism, Apartheid, Ba'athism, or any form of fascism. I would go so far as to say that Anthem offers an antidote to the nightmarish vision of 1984, the definitive expression of soul-crushing totalitarianism.

What book would make someone a Democrat? Democrats now seem to have the moral high ground. As for a book making something out of someone -- there is the Koran, which might make someone a Muslim...  which is surely preferable to what The Satanic Bible, The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, The Kloran (the guide to KKK practice), or anything written by the Marquis de Sade can make of someone.

Voltaire? Darwin? Freud? Any other suggestions?

Try Cervantes, Shakespeare, Milton, Goethe... maybe Tolstoy.

My school has the freshmen read Anthem. That is how I got into Rand. Anthem is the only Rand book that is worth reading if you are uninterested in her. It's rather non partisan, barely philosophical, and very, very short.

Ayn Rand is the worst. I mean that.

Please tell me what book of hers you read.

Yeah... no.

Atlas is way too complicated. Idaho would have 95% dropout rates if it were a requirement.

I would offer "The Fountainhead" as a book for an honors English class to read. It is philosophical, in a non political way, unlike Atlas. It also is Rand's best from a pure literary point of view. It is much less short, and had a stronger affect on my thinking then Atlas did.

[fezzyfestoon]

Ayn Rand is the worst. I mean that.

Please tell me what book of hers you read.

None, are you kidding? It doesn't take 7 trillion pages of terrible reading to know her writing is obnoxious while she herself is hateful and bitter. She propagates paranoia and celebrates being selfish. It's a very childish and shallow pseudo-philosophy that she indulges herself in.

[Indy Texas]

This man fails to grasp the irony of having the government force people to read Objectivist literature in order to obtain a credential that the State has a monopoly on granting and that is funded by money expropriated from the "Makers" of society.

Kind of like the members of the Faith-Family-Freedom crowd of conservatives who idolize her without realizing she was disgusted by faith and family.

[TNF]

Can you imagine what Fox News would be screeching if a Democratic state legislator supported a bill forcing high schoolers to read Capital? The devotion of so many Republicans to this extremist ideology is rather unnerving.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Ayn Rand is the worst. I mean that.

Please tell me what book of hers you read.

None, are you kidding? It doesn't take 7 trillion pages of terrible reading to know her writing is obnoxious while she herself is hateful and bitter. She propagates paranoia and celebrates being selfish. It's a very childish and shallow pseudo-philosophy that she indulges herself in.

If you understood her philosophy at all (I do not totally follow it, but I agree with parts of it), she condemns altruism for altruisms sake, not just pure altruism. If I get personal pleasure/satisfaction from giving a homeless man a dollar to buy beer, which I do (whatever makes him happy), then its fine. Read her personal letters. They answer all kinds of questions, and show Objectivism better than anything. If you read her letters, this “selfish old Russian b*tch” supported several families in post war Europe, paid in full the education her nieces, and strongly supported charity-but she did believe that nobody should be ashamed of their wealth, and should not be forced to be charitable by society’s morals or the law itself.

Objectivism is a very complex philosophy that celebrates man, not men. But Rand is nothing close to what you, and others on the left vilify it as.

Can you imagine what Fox News would be screeching if a Democratic state legislator supported a bill forcing high schoolers to read Capital? The devotion of so many Republicans to this extremist ideology is rather unnerving.

Massive outcry on the right. I agree with you, and so would Rand. Schools should not push any partisan propaganda on people, though both Marx and Rand (and many, many more) should be examined.

This man fails to grasp the irony of having the government force people to read Objectivist literature in order to obtain a credential that the State has a monopoly on granting and that is funded by money expropriated from the "Makers" of society.

Kind of like the members of the Faith-Family-Freedom crowd of conservatives who idolize her without realizing she was disgusted by faith and family.

One of her books has a "rape" (not a rape in context, but rape is rape to me. Some Objectivists would disagree), all four contain sex, and three of them have the main female character engaging in multiple sexual relationships at one time. Not to mention Rand's own affair with Nathanial Branden, which was just odd.

[Link]

If you understood her philosophy at all (I do not totally follow it, but I agree with parts of it), she condemns altruism for altruisms sake, not just pure altruism. If I get personal pleasure/satisfaction from giving a homeless man a dollar to buy beer, which I do (whatever makes him happy), then its fine. Read her personal letters. They answer all kinds of questions, and show Objectivism better than anything. If you read her letters, this “selfish old Russian b*tch” supported several families in post war Europe, paid in full the education her nieces, and strongly supported charity-but she did believe that nobody should be ashamed of their wealth, and should not be forced to be charitable by society’s morals or the law itself.

What you and psycho b*tch fail to realize is a system of taxation with a safety net helps society function more smoothly.  We do not have libertarin roads.  We do not have a libertarian space program.  We did not build a libertarian Manhatten project, Hoover Dam, Apollo program, etc.

If I am a boss I would much rather cut one check to the government a year and have my employees live in a safe environment, with guaranteed basic health care and education for their children.  An employee that isn't worried about that stuff or crawling on their belly to various charities is a more productive employee.  Libertarians live in caves.  People with a government develop mathematics and build the pyramids.

Why have thousands of charities with thousands of payrolls and CEOs and advertising budgets and retirement plans.  How in the world is that efficient?  What charity ever put a man on the moon?!

[DC Al Fine]

Ayn Rand is the worst. I mean that.

Please tell me what book of hers you read.

None, are you kidding? It doesn't take 7 trillion pages of terrible reading to know her writing is obnoxious while she herself is hateful and bitter. She propagates paranoia and celebrates being selfish. It's a very childish and shallow pseudo-philosophy that she indulges herself in.

To back him up, I've read Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged, found the first two entertaining... and I still think Rand is a horrible person.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

What you and psycho b*tch fail to realize is a system of taxation with a safety net helps society function more smoothly.  We do not have libertarian roads.  We do not have a libertarian space program.  We did not build a libertarian Manhattan project, Hoover Dam, Apollo program, etc.

I never said I agreed with Ayn Rand fully. My own brother gets social security benefits, as well as Medicaid and Medicare to help cover the group home he lives in. Food stamps help people who just cant afford food to survive. I support these programs, though I do favor reforms to them to make them more efficient. Ayn Rand did not, on principle, support them. But nowhere does she explicitly condemn those on these systems for receiving government aid. She condemned those who thought they were entitled to support, whether or not they actually need it. We do have private roads, though I agree the national highway system should remain the same. And I think Rand would likely agree; after all, her taxes, your taxes, and my taxes support the roads, and we drive on them. Isn’t that a form of capitalism right there?

If I am a boss I would much rather cut one check to the government a year and have my employees live in a safe environment, with guaranteed basic health care and education for their children.  An employee that isn't worried about that stuff or crawling on their belly to various charities is a more productive employee.  Libertarians live in caves.  People with a government develop mathematics and build the pyramids.

Agreed with all but the first sentence. If I owned a company, say Walmart, I would want the best benefits possible to make the most productive employees possible. Sadly, most company leaders don’t think like I do. If a company DOES NOT cover such things, but still pays a regular salary, then the employee should make his own choice. Is the salary worth it? Or should I go get a job with more benefits. If he doesn’t like Walmart, he can always go work at Target. As for the last sentence, well, I think slaves actually built the pyramids for free, and they weren’t even productive buildings. They were massive mausoleums that Egypt’s version of the 1% got to have while all the Jews toiled in the sun.

Why have thousands of charities with thousands of payrolls and CEOs and advertising budgets and retirement plans.  How in the world is that efficient?  What charity ever put a man on the moon?!

Private enterprise has yet to put a man on the moon. But who cares. I rather have my government be  maintaining law and order (within a constitutional framework, of course), and passing reasonable legislation then sending scientist to some floating rock in space that orbits us and brings in high and low tide.

[Link]

She condemned those who thought they were entitled to support, whether or not they actually need it.

She had to write multiple gigantic books to express what I learned by age 5?!

Agreed with all but the first sentence. If I owned a company, say Walmart, I would want the best benefits possible to make the most productive employees possible. Sadly, most company leaders don’t think like I do.

That's because they are experts at making and/or selling widgets.  They have no desire to create a monstrous department called human resources and hire a bunch of social work and liberal arts majors to administers a mind boggling array of retirement and healthcare plans.  They want someone to come in and make widgets.  Then at the end of every two week interval they want to cut the guy a check.  The inefficiency and duplication that exists throughout our economy is ridiculous.

As for the last sentence, well, I think slaves actually built the pyramids for free, and they weren’t even productive buildings. They were massive mausoleums that Egypt’s version of the 1% got to have while all the Jews toiled in the sun.

Taxation is what allowed Egypt to have an army to control the slave labor force.  The pyramids were not just fanciful tombstones.  In a chaotic and dangerous world they illustrated to the other empires the power of Egypt.

Private enterprise has yet to put a man on the moon. But who cares. I rather have my government be  maintaining law and order (within a constitutional framework, of course), and passing reasonable legislation then sending scientist to some floating rock in space that orbits us and brings in high and low tide.

Life is not just about mere existence.  The Apollo program had useful spin off technologies and knowledge.  Also it cost a pittance.  Man you really need to think outside the box.  If you are an American manufacturer looking to export can you think of a better advertisement for American ingenuity and quality?  You need to study some marketing.  At one point in our history the entire planet that had access to a TV or radio was transfixed on one of the most monumental accomplishments in human history.  And that moment was brought to you by the United States.  I can't think of a better way those few tax dollars could have been spent?  As tax breaks so people could build swimming pools?

[badgate]

1. We do need to update the high school English reading curriculum.

2. We do not need to accomplish 1 by assigning students Ayn Rand

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

She had to write multiple gigantic books to express what I learned by age 5?!

Most of society is not like you; her books were books, keep in mind. She considered herself a novelist first and foremost. The philosophy was the background in which her heroes could exist. I will make a deal with you. If I read the “Communist Manifesto”, will you read “We the Living” or the “Fountainhead”? I think we can both learn a great deal about different philosophies.

That's because they are experts at making and/or selling widgets.  They have no desire to create a monstrous department called human resources and hire a bunch of social work and liberal arts majors to administers a mind boggling array of retirement and healthcare plans.  They want someone to come in and make widgets.  Then at the end of every two week interval they want to cut the guy a check.  The inefficiency and duplication that exists throughout our economy is ridiculous.

If they don’t want to do this, how come they are so successful? Did you not earlier say the following?

If I am a boss I would much rather cut one check to the government a year and have my employees live in a safe environment, with guaranteed basic health care and education for their children.  An employee that isn't worried about that stuff or crawling on their belly to various charities is a more productive employee.

Clearly, companies can and could do a lot more. You’re right on that. But what right does the employee have to run the company. He of course has the constitutionally guaranteed right to question his boss. And if I were in such a position, I would. If the employee feels he is not getting enough out of the company, and most who feel that way usually are not getting enough, they can always find better employment. That being said, in this economy, which is starting to come back, it is generally a better idea to wait it out.

Taxation is what allowed Egypt to have an army to control the slave labor force.  The pyramids were not just fanciful tombstones.  In a chaotic and dangerous world they illustrated to the other empires the power of Egypt.

Did the World Trade Center not symbolize the free market? Did the free market prevent 9/11? The pyramids, or any grandiose government or societal monument does not translate in security or stability. The Buda Statues in Afghanistan are a testament to that. So massive taxation and slavery (I know your not defending it, so don’t take this as a strawman argument-I don’t intend it to be) are only truly successful on paper.

Life is not just about mere existence.  The Apollo program had useful spin off technologies and knowledge.  Also it cost a pittance.  Man you really need to think outside the box.  If you are an American manufacturer looking to export can you think of a better advertisement for American ingenuity and quality?  You need to study some marketing.  At one point in our history the entire planet that had access to a TV or radio was transfixed on one of the most monumental accomplishments in human history.  And that moment was brought to you by the United States.  I can't think of a better way those few tax dollars could have been spent?  As tax breaks so people could build swimming pools?

The Apollo program was a great symbol, no doubt about it. And it did spawn useful technologies. As unrelated as they seem, I would not be surprised if something related/descended from Apollo ended up curing aids. But why should the people around the world look at our government as a reason to buy our products. Yes, our government won the space race. Our government also found WMDs in Iraq . I would rather look at products sold by Steve Jobs (a fan of Atlas Shrugged, by the way) born too immigrant parents and raised by a another middle class couple, who built one of the greatest companies of all time and changed the world forever with his innovation. If I were a Chinese citizen, living in a two room apartment in the middle of Beijing, I would want the life of Jobs, not the one I have.

[homelycooking]

Why can't we have a state legislator somewhere demand that his state's high school students be forced to read The Mill on the Floss?

[Link]

If they don’t want to do this, how come they are so successful? Did you not earlier say the following?

If I am a boss I would much rather cut one check to the government a year and have my employees live in a safe environment, with guaranteed basic health care and education for their children.  An employee that isn't worried about that stuff or crawling on their belly to various charities is a more productive employee.

I seem to recall quite a few companies going banktrupt several times due to their healthcare and retirement costs.  It is not at all clear to me that they are "so successful."

Taxation is what allowed Egypt to have an army to control the slave labor force.  The pyramids were not just fanciful tombstones.  In a chaotic and dangerous world they illustrated to the other empires the power of Egypt.

Did the World Trade Center not symbolize the free market? Did the free market prevent 9/11?

WTF?!  Are they having a sale on non sequitors?  We have a nuclear deterrent.  We have the most powerful military in the world.  They didn't prevent 911 either.  Should we ditch them?  Are they useless?  Just because something is useful doesn't mean it is 100% perfect and works against 100% of the threats.  And my example about the pyramids was for an empire 3000 years ago.  I was hoping you had enough of an ability to abstract to be able to apply modern examples in an intelligent way.  If you think projects that boost a countries prestige have no benefits for commerce, economics, and diplomacy then I have to wonder what you are doing on a political forum.

The Apollo program was a great symbol, no doubt about it. And it did spawn useful technologies. As unrelated as they seem, I would not be surprised if something related/descended from Apollo ended up curing aids. But why should the people around the world look at our government as a reason to buy our products.

Look Sanchez one day you will grow up and get out in the real world and have to make a buck to feed yourself.  Hopefully before then you will open your mind and take a marketing class or two.  You and a lot of your adolescent friends simply do not understand the basics of human psychology.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I seem to recall quite a few companies going banktrupt several times due to their healthcare and retirement costs.  It is not at all clear to me that they are "so successful."

Nobody ever said they had to do it. If they can afford it, they should do it, if not, they shouldn’t.  If the employees don’t get enough benefits for their liking (current regulations make it nearly impossible to not have some basic support for their employees), they can always find other employment.

WTF?!  Are they having a sale on non sequitors?  We have a nuclear deterrent.  We have the most powerful military in the world.  They didn't prevent 911 either.  Should we ditch them?  Are they useless?  Just because something is useful doesn't mean it is 100% perfect and works against 100% of the threats.  And my example about the pyramids was for an empire 3000 years ago.  I was hoping you had enough of an ability to abstract to be able to apply modern examples in an intelligent way.  If you think projects that boost a countries prestige have no benefits for commerce, economics, and diplomacy then I have to wonder what you are doing on a political forum.

Thanks for selectively editing my post; that certainly was fair. I am not making straw man arguments, and I didn’t expect you to do so either. The military that we have did not prevent 9/11. Which is a good argument for its structural reform and massive spending cuts in Defense, for whatever its worth. As for the concept of national prestige; is North Korea a threat because of the Juche Tower in Pyongyang? Or is it a threat because of their nuclear program and the rocket/artillery positions ready to turn Seoul into a lake of fire. Was the Juche Tower worth the cost in North Korea? Or should Kim Ill Sung try and contain the flooding that was ruining his country at the time of Juche towers completion?

Look Sanchez one day you will grow up and get out in the real world and have to make a buck to feed yourself.  Hopefully before then you will open your mind and take a marketing class or two.  You and a lot of your adolescent friends simply do not understand the basics of human psychology.

Ah, good old condescension. A flailing arguments best friend. I don’t know much about psychology, other then what I have read about Freud, Nietzsche (mega HP), and Rand (if she counts). But I know enough about the free market to know that most people focus on brand name, not the country of origin. Do you see “made in China on your Apple products?” Or do you just see “Apple.” I just see Apple (actually, I don’t. I don’t have any Apple products) or Microsoft when I buy a product. I don’t care about China’s population, or Apollo 11, of the intricate and elaborate city planning of Washington DC. I care about the product I am buying.

[Knives]

It's so poorly written though, it's like Twilight standard.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

It's so poorly written though, it's like Twilight standard.

I would not say it is poorly written, but it is far from being great compared to most literature.

[pbrower2a]

She had to write multiple gigantic books to express what I learned by age 5?!

Most of society is not like you; her books were books, keep in mind. She considered herself a novelist first and foremost. The philosophy was the background in which her heroes could exist. I will make a deal with you. If I read the “Communist Manifesto”, will you read “We the Living” or the “Fountainhead”? I think we can both learn a great deal about different philosophies.

The Communist Manifesto is a swift read. Das Kapital is more difficult.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

But competition itself is duplication. If you already have Wal*Mart in town, then do you also need K-Mart? If you already have Safeway, do you also need Kroger? Competition keeps business from gouging more effectively than does regulation. If you have a General Motors vehicle you have a better car for the money than otherwise because there are also Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Volkswagen, Hyundai, and KIA as competition. No competition? You might get stuck with a Dacia or a Trabant as a vehicle, or worse a Soviet-style retailer that has people queuing for merchandise whose availability goes from glut to absence in a short time and in which clerks are being paid bribes to have stuff for a favored customer.

Some of the duplication is necessary for keeping those who have custody of assets from robbing a company blind. Except in a mom-and-pop business, companies are expected to separate the functions of custody of assets and recording the transactions. At least the competition keeps some efficiency (one gouger can make an unconscionable profit, but if everyone does it everyone is poorer for it) and creates more jobs and consumer surplus.    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly, companies can and could do a lot more. You’re right on that. But what right does the employee have to run the company. He of course has the constitutionally guaranteed right to question his boss. And if I were in such a position, I would. If the employee feels he is not getting enough out of the company, and most who feel that way usually are not getting enough, they can always find better employment. That being said, in this economy, which is starting to come back, it is generally a better idea to wait it out.

If Barack Obama resets the norms for political life and economic behavior for the next fifty or so years as did FDR, then 'waiting for the return of Coolidge policies' will be futile. An investor would miss opportunities.

An employee has the supposed right to ask his superiors for better working conditions and higher pay -- not that that employee has any right to expect the desired result, and with the caveat that the employee who asks for too much is likely to become unemployed.  Investors have the right to wait until 'a better business climate dawns' before investing or to invest in 'more amenable markets', just as workers have no duty to accept the first job opening available let alone seek to take a job away from someone already employed. Besides, an employer might not want a competent engineer to become a file clerk or janitor and doing half-hearted work while seeking the work best suited to his abilities and temperament.      

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did the World Trade Center not symbolize the free market? Did the free market prevent 9/11? The pyramids, or any grandiose government or societal monument does not translate in security or stability. The Buda Statues in Afghanistan are a testament to that. So massive taxation and slavery (I know your not defending it, so don’t take this as a strawman argument-I don’t intend it to be) are only truly successful on paper. [/quote]

The World Trade Center was owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a public enterprise that exists to facilitate transportation, travel, and business. It has special rights granted by the States of New York and New Jersey. It is not private enterprise even if it makes huge deals with private enterprise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Apollo program was a great symbol, no doubt about it. And it did spawn useful technologies. As unrelated as they seem, I would not be surprised if something related/descended from Apollo ended up curing AIDS. But why should the people around the world look at our government as a reason to buy our products. Yes, our government won the space race. Our government also found WMDs in Iraq . I would rather look at products sold by Steve Jobs (a fan of Atlas Shrugged, by the way) born too immigrant parents and raised by a another middle class couple, who built one of the greatest companies of all time and changed the world forever with his innovation. If I were a Chinese citizen, living in a two room apartment in the middle of Beijing, I would want the life of Jobs, not the one I have. [/quote]
[/quote]

...and if I were a sharecropper living in rural Mississippi at terms dictated by the landlord that ensure my poverty I might prefer the life of some Communist Party official in Beijing, too. Almost everyone wants to be part of the privileged elite or at least to enjoy the perquisites of membership in that elite.

People obviously cannot get everything that they want. A system that consigns the vast majority of people to gross poverty whether due to the exercise of elite power or bungling that prevents economic improvement is itself a failure.